Finally got page 11 set and active. Been kind of a busy week at the Empire so it’s been difficult to find time to sit down and work with the page. I noticed some strange activity in the server logs too. Almost as if someone was mucking around with the settings.
It’s probably nothing, I’ll check with the Imperial system administrator next week when I have more time.
Getting a few things completed this Easter Weekend. Fixed the template and set up a new email form. I’m also working on a serious email list, NOT using that silly Yahoo crap but hosted on the Odd Empire itself.
The silly circuit is strangely quiet this week. The webpage is getting lots and lots of hits though. Curios; what exactly is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patchouli_trolls_groups/ ? I don’t have to wonder who’s in that group or what they talk about. Perhaps I’m psychic?
I need to try and update this more often, for no other reason than a couple of people have become dependent on their Odd Emperor fix. Why I don’t know. I do know that some people can be addicted to most everything, even the Odd Empire (yes I love you too sweetie!)
So; what’s coming through the jewel encrusted Odd Empire transom?
Nothing! Not a damn thing. It’s very quiet on the silly circuit. The only thing I see is this piece of malarkey;
UFO sighting in 1648 AD shows the Star people will protect us
(22.03.2005)
–“By the way, I was never known as, um, “ruby-red? you twit.”
Its always nice to know when you been read. Sorry RubyHoney.
Perhaps Red Queen is more apropos?
It’s been a quiet week, other than on a fairly unassuming web page run by none other than my jilted sweetie. the Red Queen, aka natasha, aka, turtle aka ruby-red and many other pseudonyms around the Internet.
“3/13/05 Update: OE it seems, has a reputation. Such well known and respected UFO and paranormal researchers and writers, like Alfred Lemberg and Wm. Micheal Mott, have also had their share of run ins with this trouble making PsychoSkeptic. (Which he proudly displays on his web site; these rants between him and others.) Nice to know I’m not the only one. OE has also posted that I’m angry because he left my groups and that his emails hit “too close to the mark.” Oh yes, THAT’S it, all right. Yet one more example of these Psycho Skeptics not taking any responsibility.”
Well known? Respected researchers? Mott and Lehamberg are neither well known nor respected and calling either of them that is an insult to good researchers everywhere. There’re both artists who got conked in the head too hard by Fortean “sky fish”. Spending all their time attempting to prove that black is white, Mott want’s to tell us that the Earth is hollow. Lehamberg is just disgusted that the US Government and FOX news won’t just come out and tell the truth, that it’s all the aliens fault.
Strangely enough, I think the Red Queen fancys herself an artist too. Hmm. Perhaps I have something there?
Actually, what I posted was this ..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/razorfiles/message/2303
From: “Odd Emperor”
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:31 am
Subject: Re: A long-overdue swipe
I saw this right around March first and I must say that I’m *quite*
flattered! Being the number one Psycho Skeptic in this person’s book is an endorsement that I couldn’t buy for all the money at Redmond. But I got it anyway!
Anyway, the real reason she made me her number one hated skeptic is because; she feels jilted. I didn’t allow her to kick me off, I removed myself from her lists. And as for the “creepy” emails I sent her? Very simply, I hit too close to the mark.
So; thanks Red Queen (Natasha.) I’m very flattered, just. Will you
please fix the link from your page to mine?
-and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/razorfiles/message/2307
She’s kind of troubled to be sure. I wonder what happened? Where is all this anger coming from?
She’s just sent me a pretty crude message, calling me “pus filled” and other silly sounding stuff. I’d discuss this with her but it’s moot that any discussion with her becomes a brawl. I actually like discussing stuff with her but she gets so tedious with her huge double standards, her lying and her hatred. She doesn’t realize it though, that’s what so insidious.
I really wish I could help her some way but she’s going to have to figure out this stuff for herself. Hatred can consume a person and The Odd Emperor doesn’t have time for such nonsense.
***
She’s also been lurking on JREF, lurking because she nearly got thrown out for her nasty-nasty posts to people. Now to be perfectly fair, some of the JREFrs did bait her somewhat but it’s clear that she can’t really take what she dishes out.
Most of those people are OK until someone try’s to ram a bunch of bullcrap down their skeptical necks, then they descend like locusts. They don’t get too insulting other than by saying “what you said is stupid.” That’s criticism to the words not the people and most understand that it’s OK to bash the words of someone, so long as you don’t bash the person. Red Queen (and many other woos out there) just don’t get that.
Here’s a comment about one of my posts;
“3/17/05 Update: In a classic case of the Psycho Skeptic’s refusal to take responsibility, OE has said, of Alfred Lemberg, that he complained being attacked was liked being “punched in the face.” OE wonders, in feigned guieless wonder, why would someone be ever so emotional over mere discussion?”
Of course that’s not what I said. Natasha has this penchant for distorting the truth, of even public records! She barely reads anyone’s posts, picks a few words out of context and goes nuts with them. This is know in some circles as *lying* telling untruths, distorting facts. To Natasha this appears to be called “just revenge.”
What I actually said was this..
03-17-2005 03:01 PM
I’m still not sure what pathological skepticism really is. Closed minded prejudicial thinking? Automatically nay-saying without investigation? I don’¢t even call that skepticism. In fact I’m not skeptical about things I strongly believe I wonder if the term ‘“pathological skepticism” might not be something of an oxymoron.
I’ve certainly been accused of being a pathological skeptic’many times. In each case it was in response to some honest (albeit blunt) criticism of a web page. I’ve found that people leaning to the side tend to be very thin-skinned when questioned and some of them become very defensive in a way that I can only describe as pathological.
What’s with that? I’ve never met a skeptic who reacts in the same way. In fact I suspect that a true skeptic can withstand critical review without descending into one or more logical fallacies. That’s because to be skeptical is to be *not knowing.* whereas most people on the other side of the fence seem to have so little wiggle room in their beliefs that any counter argument or criticism is a personal attack, some people (Alfred Lehmberg for example) says that being criticized is like getting punched in the face.
You can read all of my posts on JREF here. A free membership is required to search but the list but archives are open to non members.
The Red Queen goes on to say..
3/13/05 Update: OE it seems, has a reputation. Such well known and respected UFO and paranormal researchers and writers, like Alfred Lemberg and Wm. Micheal Mott, have also had their share of run ins with this trouble making PsychoSkeptic. (Which he proudly displays on his web site; these rants between him and others.) Nice to know I’m not the only one. OE has also posted that I’m angry because he left my groups and that his emails hit “too close to the mark.” Oh yes, THAT’S it, all right. Yet one more example of these Psycho Skeptics not taking any responsibility.
OE’s nonsense on JREF.
This link doesn’t really go to one of my posts , Red Queen is nothing if not link challenged (among other things.)
But she calls my posts nonsense? That’s funny! I’m guessing that if I posted something like “You blazing pile of subdominant bunged up offal.” I wouldn’t be posting Nonsense?
Well I think *that* is nonsense. Perhaps I’m not a native speaker.
Of course she ment to send a user here.
Oops! I meant here.
Ahh, I mean here.
Dang it, lets try it again!
This is not really an exhaustive lists but you get the idea.You can see all of Red Queen’s posts here, you need to be a member but I always urge people to look at both sides of an issue before making a judgment.
My, my, some people have great fans. Some people have groupies. And some people, like Mott and Lemberg have ahh..
This person! I guess they deserve each other.
I have to wonder sometime what exactly goes through the minds of people. Especially the self deceptions and the double standards they seem to have. Deceiving one’s self is probably the worse kind of lying one can commit. But in the course of my investigations I keep running across people with little grasp of reality, a strange notion that insulting people or killing the messenger is going to somehow gain them any kind of respect. Name calling and belligerence is OK so long as it’s against someone they disagree with. Purposeful misrepresentation of the facts is all right so long as it’s for a good cause.
These things are never OK. Not even if you have a beef. It’s far better to direct one’s issues with the offending party and drop the whole thing when the message is delivered. Much less drama that way but people in the believe community seem to disagree.
March 5, 2005 This is a rather strange document from someone who claims to be a researcher in Oregon. Actually this person claims to be a number of things. I wanted to make a couple of comments. The original can be found at Oregon Fortena.
RUBY’S U.F.O. MANIFESTO
1.The question, \“Do you believe in UFOs” will never again be asked. For the question is moot. The question is the wrong question. Indeed, the question is, \“What are they” not “Do you believe”
Perhaps; This is assuming that everyone believes the same thing. As a personal testimony and individual creed it’s laudable but creating creeds for something like UFOS is a little strange and probably useless. UFOs seem to be a very subjective phenomena in that no two people perceive them in exactly the same way.
1a. Furthermore, the question of “belief” in a UFO shall cease to exist. One cannot, or does not, “believe” in airplanes, clouds, cars, toasters, or hamster cages. One does not “believe” in UFOs, one witnesses a UFO. Interpretation is another matter, The idea of an inherent belief in UFOs is no longer valid and shall forever be vanquished.
Well, one can submit that people see unknown objects in the sky, defining what those objects are is quite another thing.
2. The unstated assumption that UFOs equals extra terrestrials shall forever hence be vanquished from the lexicon. UFO does not mean aliens from outer space, inner space, or your basement (It could be, but that’s a different issue.) This assumption is made frequently by UFO debunkers and often by so-called believers. Both groups shall cease to make this assumption.
Both groups? This ‘“Ruby” person is making a declaration of responsibility and an order into “the lexicon” (whatever that might be.) I suspect that this person cannot speak for either believers or debunkers.
3. U.F.O. will replace UFO. UFO is not a word. U.F.O. is an acronym, with stands for Unidentified Flying Object. UFO is murky, a would be word that only causes confusion, such as the case above: UFO being , in the minds of many with alien piloted spacecraft. Such assumptions set the stage for the debate, which is an unfair advantage or disadvantage, depending on one’s mind set. (debunker, pseudo skeptic, or Fortean.) Therefore, to prepare for a clean area of debate and discussion, the acronym U.F.O. will replace UFO.
Probably be a good time to start doing this? I notice that there is a huge double standard in many of these statements. Red Queen uses the term UFO freely, I’ve found the best way to lead is by example. In other words, *you*( the writer of this manifesto) start using the acronym U.F.O. in all your various correspondence. If you do and you get even a modicum of respect you’ll see others emulating you. I call this the “trim-tab effect.” Tiny changes rippling out into the world and causing profound and far reaching changes.
4. Dismissing documentaries out of hand because they: A) are about UFOs, er, U.F.O.s and B) because they appeared on TLC, Discovery, Sci Fi channel shall no longer be allowed. Judge the program on its content, not the station.
Accreditation is extremely important in any pursuit. A documentary on the Sci Fi channel is no less a documentary but documentaries on UFOs as a whole are not very credible by their very nature. What most people forget is that documentaries on television are less for information than entertainment, UFO documentaries are almost pure entertainment from the get-go. In other words, I’e never seen a UFO documentary that had any information I had not already seen before, sometimes many years previously. News in this day and age is “not-news.” It’s all a circus and that goes double for UFOs.
5. Forteans, U.F.O. researchers, experiences, etc. will give debunkers, skeptoids and pseudo skeptics only an hour’s worth of discussion time. After that, you will move on. It is a worthless energy drain, time waster, and supreme distraction to engage the enemy to any greater degree. Henceforth, U.F.O. debunkers will be allowed what will amount to 1 hour of debate time per so-called “believer.” After that, another believer will replace the previous believer.
Uh, yes sir-sir! I’m assuming all researchers will fall into lockstep? Basically “If you don’t like what they are saying, shut them the f*** up.”
Interesting way to get people to listen to you. Usually it’s a good idea to listen to both sides of an issue instead of just one. Not looking at both sides of an issue is extremely prejudicial.
6. Groups, organizations, individuals who call for “legalizing” the U.F.O. field, and other such authoritarian measures, will immediately cease.
One wonder’s at the incredible arrogance of this statement. The ‘manifesto’ is itself an attempt to regulate UFO research.
How ironic is it that?
7. All anomalous data within U.F.O. narratives will be included in retelling.
I agree!. All information should be included. Good call!
8. When citing the research done by those with degrees, those degrees and titles will be stated and included. Stan Friedman is Dr. Stan Friedman, nuclear physicist. Jacques Vallee is Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist. John Mack is Dr. John Mack, psychiatrist and Pulitzer Prize winner. The consistent use of titles and degrees imbeds itself into the consciousness of U.F.O. debunkers. U.F.O. debunkers and skeptoids will attempt to dismiss any UFO researcher that does not fit within their agenda including those with degrees and aligned with academia or the scientific community. Nonetheless, the message must be hammered into them: “serious” people research U.F.O.s.
The same can be done with people who tend to debunk UFO material. Accrediting someone based on whether or not their opinion agrees with yours invites prejudice.
BTW, it’s probably a good idea to actually state their real degrees and qualifications, not what you think they are. For example; Dr. Vallee has his PhD in Computer Science, he has some training in astrophysics but he is not an Astrophysicist.
In conclusion? This manifesto is almost all useless. Writing elaborate wish-lists for a field of research is just fine but no one is going to take you seriously with this! The way to be taken seriously is to actually get out and do the scrub work, not just interview someone for a UFO web page but really do the research. Your local university or community college can help you out there.
The only way to get to the bottom of the UFOs conundrum is to systematically apply scientific principles. Wishful thinking, and writing elaborate manifestos doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Real research takes a detailed oriented, painstaking approach. It means giving up preconceived notions and beliefs. It means allowing the evidence to propel the research, not starting with a strong belief system and attempting to find proofs.
The writer of this manifesto doesn’t seem to understand this.
February 28, 2005 Whitley Strieber’s rant on the Peter Jennings Reports, UFOs Seeing is Believing.
February 27, 2005
—The Scum Rises: Peter Jennings on UFOs
Friday February 25th, 2005
I’ve seen a couple of harshly worded bits coming out of the Strieber web page, few venomous as his commentary on the ABC, Peter Jennings Reports, UFOs, Seeing is Believing. Whitley Strieber, author and abductee seemed very disturbed about the tone and the subject of the report
The much heralded ABC special on UFOs has come and gone. Predictably, it was more of the same, a large number of lies sprinkled with a few truths.
Lies? A large number of lies? Specifically what lies are we talking about? Certainly the Jennings UFO segment of Peter Jennings Reports was attempting to be objective, to tell both sides of the story. Insomuch as reporting is supposed to about relating both sides it’s not unusual for any news program to air “lies”? just to be fair. Allowing the audience to make up their minds is what it’s all about. Anything else would be sheer propaganda.
It’s pretty clear to the Odd Emperor that Mr. Strieber is not really interested in weighing the pros and the cons. Some of his statements are telling indeed.
“Jennings was somewhat open to the notion that some UFOs might be actual unknowns, and he actually told the truth, for once, about Project Bluebook: it was indeed a publicity stunt.”
Well, no. Blue Book was a public relations office, not a publicity stunt as Mr. Strieber so quaintly states. Not really studying UFOs at all it was (according to some) meant to channel some of the public interest in UFOs and make it appear that the Air Force doing something about them. Why they chose to do something like this is a fascinating (and more or less unanswered) question of the period. The Jennings piece did a much better than average job explaining some of this.
On Roswell Streiber calls Peter Jennings a “prostitute” for characterizing this incident as a “hoax.” Somehow the Odd Emperor cannot recall anything approaching this kind of wording in the Peter Jennings report. They did strongly suggest that the Air force covered up a crashed surveillance device with an initial press story stating a flying disk had been discovered, then yanked it when public interest became focused opposite of their apparent intent. It would seem the Air Force spent decades backpedaling and covering up this embarrassing genie they unwittingly uncorked. Jennings report covered this aspect and also gave considerable time to the people who insist it was an alien crash site. While not perfect it seemed to fairly cover many aspects of Roswell without becoming too judgmental.
According to Mr. Strieber, since *he* met some people who, in all sincerity say that the debris were otherworldly it must have been a case of aliens crashing their spacecraft and any attempt to explain it differently is enemy propaganda. Even when the facts don’t really conclude much of anything? All we have from Roswell is a big fat bunch of anecdotal data, just like most UFO reports. How can anyone make a conclusion from that? Only one who’s already made up their minds on the subject. Since Mr. Strieber already knows that aliens crashed at Roswell he seems to think that the rest of us should just shut up and believe. In the real world though, just believing is not enough. To have a compelling belief, one must have some compelling evidence. In the case of Roswell, all we have is a mass of stories, we don’t even have *one* first hand witness.
Strieber goes on to say
“The ones who debunk it are professional liars or ignorant fools, pure and simple.”
This goes under the “takes one to know one” heading. Seems to me that Mr. Strieber made a bit of money being a professional liar. That is what a fiction author is, a paid liar. There is nothing wrong with this. But anyone who debunks is either a fool or a liar? If ever a statement is poised to bite an author on the ass. Mr Strieber’s entire epistle is an attempt to debunk too, what does that make you sir? A liar? a fool? Mr. Strieber; take your pick.
I wonder what Mr. Strieber’s beef is about all of this. Is it jealousy? He did not appear on the Jennings’s report although they did flash photos of his book covers. He seems bitter and angry that some people have called him a cultist, and labeled his friend Budd Hopkins with a similar moniker. if I am simply sitting back and making a fortune off my books, then where is that fortune? This is assuming all cultist make a fortune and the simple fact is, just like writers, most cultists fail to gain a following or a fortune.
The bottom line seems to be that since ABC news did not consult with Strieber personally on the issue of UFOs they are to be demonized and lambasted. “Since they did not choose to tell only one side of the UFO abduction story, that of the abductee they, (according to Strieber) have made an unforgivable sin not only to journalism but to humanity as well. “
There is a single word description to what Mr. Strieber seems to want from ABC. It’s a word he used many times in his rant. The word is propaganda. Yes; he wants propaganda from ABC but only propaganda emanating from himself and the small cadre of people who “know the truth.” This is presumably so that the rest of us ignorant idiots will somehow become enlightened and awaken from our silly ideas of proof or compelling evidence.
I sympathize with the abductee community to some extent. Assuming the phenomena is real, that aliens are here and interacting with humanity. Is it not incumbent on us to stop feeding at the trough that the aliens have set before us. Since they have purposely hidden their agenda and actively prevent people from obtaining proof in the form of physical evidence, should not people like Mr. Strieber support a news program like Seeing is Believing which seemed to be a real attempt to tell both sides, to actually report and not deliver propaganda. If the aliens exist, it seems clear to me that *this* is in fact what they are doing.
